There are a lot of wrong ways to approach climate change, both in terms of the policies proposed, and in terms of the rhetoric used. The people in our society with the most power and the biggest platforms are pretty much universally people who have no trouble making ends meet. I think that’s part of why they’re so willing to embrace the notion that climate change is about individual choices, rather than systems, because paying a little more for something doesn’t really affect their quality of life much. Left Reckoning has a perspective on this that I think is worth lyour time:
I got 5 minutes in (at 1.4x with subtitles, so I could just read it), and I’m still unaware of what the purported way to not talk about it may be.
Lots of assertions, no meat. I did not continue watching/reading.
So, on the OP,
Why the focus on the well-off?
That sentiment is equally applicable — arguably, more so — to the poor than to the rich.
That is to say, when one is sufficiently poor, surviving until tomorrow is much more important than reducing one’s environmental footprint.
Thing is, the masses of the poor far exceed in quantity that of the upper strata of society, and it cumulatively adds up to the majority of the consumption.
The well off have the means to individually change their habits, even if doing so takes more time or money. They’re less likely to be forced by experience to see how our system makes it impossible for most people to do the kind of individual action that has been the popular “solution” to everything.
Abe, I am in accord with both of your contentions @3.
So the bit you were waiting for started around the 6 minute mark I think, but the TL:DW is this –
The focus is on rising gas prices, and the people saying that “paying a little more for gas is worth it to achieve X”, whether it’s “stop Putin”, or “end gas use” tend not to be the ones who might no longer to be able to afford to commute, with higher prices.
It’s turning societal crises into individual ones, and so we stop gas use by making gas more expensive so people will be forced to “choose” something else.
Rather than what we SHOULD be doing, which is changing things at the societal level to make cars unnecessary so people CHOOSE to stop using them.
You can’t make cars unnecessary to me. No amount of societal change will move the mountains or the beach or my mother or my best friend closer to my house or place of work.
Do you seriously think cars are the only way to travel?
I’m sure they’ll always be needed to some degree, but there are plenty of people who do just fine without cars, because they have other means of transportation easily available.
https://proxy.freethought.online/affinity/2022/03/14/please-shove-your-biking-advice-where-the-sun-doesnt-shine/
That’s what I’m talking about – cars are currently necessary because of how our society is currently designed. I wasn’t thinking bikes, I was thinking better mass transit, to more places. Again – the goal is to reduce the need for cars, not to punish people for using something they can’t do without, through no fault of their own.
And yes – cars of some sort are going to be around as long as we have the technology and resources for them. The goal is to eliminate them as the default way of getting around for everyone.